Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma Resigns Amid Cash Recovery Controversy; In-House Probe and Impeachment Proceedings Triggered
In a major development that has drawn national attention, Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court, has submitted his resignation to the President of India Droupadi Murmu, stepping down from his constitutional post with immediate effect.
The resignation comes amid serious allegations of corruption following the recovery of burnt currency notes from his official residence in Delhi after a fire incident earlier this year.
In a brief but emotionally worded letter addressed to the President, Justice Varma expressed deep distress over the circumstances leading to his decision.
He stated that he did not wish to elaborate on the reasons behind his resignation but described it as a step taken with “deep anguish.”
He also acknowledged that serving as a judge of the Allahabad High Court had been an honour.
Fire Incident Led to Discovery of Burnt Cash
The controversy began on the evening of March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi.
At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were reportedly travelling in Madhya Pradesh. According to reports, only his daughter and his late mother were present at the house when the fire occurred.
Firefighters responding to the incident allegedly discovered bundles of partially burnt currency notes within the premises.
Subsequently, a video surfaced showing stacks of cash being consumed by the flames, triggering widespread speculation and allegations of corruption. Justice Varma strongly denied the allegations, asserting that the episode appeared to be part of a conspiracy intended to falsely implicate him.
In-House Inquiry Initiated by Chief Justice of India
Following the emergence of the allegations, the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, initiated an in-house inquiry on March 22 by constituting a three-member committee to examine the matter.
The committee comprised Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Anu Sivaraman, a judge of the Karnataka High Court.
The panel commenced its investigation on March 25 and later submitted its report to the Chief Justice of India on May 4. Upon examining the findings, the CJI reportedly advised Justice Varma to resign voluntarily or face impeachment proceedings.
However, when Justice Varma declined to step down at that stage, the CJI forwarded both the inquiry report and the judge’s response to the President of India as well as the Prime Minister, initiating further constitutional action regarding his removal.
In the meantime, Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court, and his judicial responsibilities were withdrawn pending the outcome of proceedings.
Parliamentary Removal Process Initiated
In August 2025, Om Birla, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, formally initiated the statutory process for the removal of Justice Varma by constituting a Judges Inquiry Committee under the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The panel initially consisted of Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B Vasudeva Acharya. Later, following Justice Shrivastava’s retirement on March 6, he was replaced by Shree Chandrashekhar.
Supreme Court Refused to Interfere in Inquiry
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India declined to interfere with the inquiry proceedings initiated against Justice Varma. A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was legally empowered to constitute the inquiry committee under the statutory framework.
The Bench held that the process prescribed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, had not been violated and noted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any immediate infringement of fundamental rights.
Significance of the Resignation
Justice Varma’s resignation marks a significant development in the ongoing controversy, as impeachment proceedings against sitting High Court judges are rare and often politically sensitive. The case has also raised broader concerns about judicial accountability, institutional integrity, and transparency within the higher judiciary.
The resignation may potentially bring closure to the constitutional process for removal, depending on the government’s next steps, though the findings of the inquiry panels are expected to remain relevant for institutional review and public discourse.
